How Strong is the Left-Narodnik Trend Among the Workers

Published:Trudovaya PravdaNo. 27, June 28, 1914.

      Published according to the text inTrudovaya Pravda.Source:Lenin
	  Collected Works,

      Progress Publishers,1972,

      Moscow,Volume 20,

      pages388-392.Translated:Bernard Isaacs and The Late Joe FinebergTranscription\Markup:R. CymbalaPublic Domain:Lenin Internet Archive

      (2004).You may freely copy, distribute,
	display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and
	commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet
	Archive” as your source.•README

Throughoutthe world a section of the workers, as is well
known, still follows the lead of various bourgeois parties. During the
period of bourgeois-democratic reform in Russia, a minority of the
class-conscious workers still follows the lead of the bourgeois group of
liquidationist writers, and of the bourgeois-democratic Narodnik trend.

Ithas been reiterated many times in precise, clearly formulated and officialdecisionsof the Marxists (1903, 1907 and
1913)[2]that the entire Narodnik trend, including the Left Narodniks,
is a bourgeois (peasant) democracy in Russia. That some of the workers
should follow the lead of the Left Narodniks, who describe radicalpeasant(but in substance downrightbourgeois) demands as
“socialism”, is quite natural in a capitalist country during an intense
movement against survivals of serfdom.

Butexactly which section of the class-conscious workers follows the
lead of the Left Narodniks?

Sovremennik, one of the most unprincipled intellectualist
journals, which (on the basis of false phrases) “unites” the Left
Narodniks, Plekhanov, and Mr. Potresov and Co., recently stated that
“about” one-third of the workers follow the lead of the Left Narodniks.

Thisis a barefaced, deliberate lie, like those commonly uttered by the
liquidators.

Asfar as we know, only three sets of objective data showing the degree
of influence the Left Narodniks exercise among the workers are
available. These are, firstly, the circulation figures of the
newspapers. Secondly, the figures showing the number of workers’ groups
which have collected funds.Thirdly, the figures showing the number of delegates elected to the
Metropolitan Insurance Board.

Weshall compare these data, which differ from the bare faced lies of
Martov, Himmer and Co. in thatanybodycan find them in open and
public sources appertaining to thedifferentparties, and verify
them.

Thecirculation figures are the most “favourable” to the bourgeois
groups (the liquidators and Left Narodniks). But the liquidator and
Left-Narodnik newspapers are bourgeois newspapers,notworking-class!  This is proved by the figures of the funds collected (from
January 1 to May 13, 1914). The liquidators’ reports show that 56 per cent
of theirtotalcollections came from non-workers (Trudovaya
PravdaNo. 15).[1]In the case of the Left Narodniks, 50 per cent of their collections came
from this source. More over, as far as is known, the Left Narodniks have
never published the financial reports of their newspaper, which, like that
of the liquidators, is evidently maintained byrich friends from among
the bourgeoisie.

ThePravdist newspaper is the only working-class newspaper. Both the
liquidationist and the Left-Narodnik news papers arebourgeois
newspapers. No lie can refute thisobjective fact.

Thefigures of the workers’ groups approach most closely and exactly to
European party membership figures.

Thenumber of Left-Narodnik groups is growing very rapidly (it has
doubled in the course of the year) and now constitutes 12.8 per cent of the
total groups of all the newspapers. Their number is growingat the
expense of the liquidators, for the number of the latter’s groups is
almost at a standstill (an increase of only ten groups in the first half of
1914 at a time when the working-class movement showed an enormous growth)
and their percentage isdiminishing:
from 21.3 per cent to 16.6 per cent.

Bytheir opportunism and renunciation of the Party, the liquidators are
pushing their working-class supporters towards theother, more
“radical” (in word) bourgeois group.

Between1913 and 1914, the Pravdists obtained 692 new groups, the
liquidators 10, and the Left Narodniks 260. In percentages the increases
are: Pravdists plus 31.7, liquidators plus 1.5, Left Narodniks plus 100
(small figures always increase faster than big ones; for example, if
Plekhanov has nine workers’ groups and, by the time of Vienna—and for
Vienna[3]—there will be 27 or 45, the percentage increase will be
plus 200, or plus 400).

TheInsurance Board election figures apply only to St. Petersburg. It
should be said that in 1914 the Left Narodniks in St. Petersburg areahead of the liquidatorsas far as collection by workers’ groups
is concerned.

Thus,between January 1 and May 13, 1914, the Pravdists in
St. Petersburg received contributions from 2,024 workers’ groups, the
liquidators from 308 and the Left Narodniks from391groups. The
percentages are: Pravdists 74.3, liquidators 11.4, Left Narodniks 14.3.

Likethe true opportunists they are, our liquidators reacted to this
increase in strength of the Left Narodniks, not by intensifying their
struggle for the principles of Marxism, but by entering into a bloc with
the Left Narodniks against the Marxists (Pravdists)!

TheLeft Narodniks, inSovremennik, openly advocate such an
alliance on behalf of all their leaders; but the liquidatorslack the
courageto explain their conduct to the workers openly and
straightforwardly. They do it in an underhand way. They are genuine Cadets.

Forexample. Recently, the Left-Narodnik newspaper (Zhivaya Mysl
TrudaNo. 3, June 15, 1914) published an article entitled “The
Insurance Delegates Elections at the Aivaz Works”. In this article we
read: ... “Of necessity, the Aivaz workers will be offered a choice of two
lists:one, a joint Menshevik and Left-Narodnik list... the other a
Pravdist list....” (Our italics.)

Alliancewith the liquidators is interpreted in this article by the
Left Narodniks as the principle of co-operation among all
“socialist” trends, i. e., the liquidators are alleged to have
renounced not only the resolution of 1907, which defined the Left Narodniks
as a bourgeois trend, but also the resolution of 1903 proposed by Axelrod.

Marxistsregard the increase in the Left Narodniks’ strength as a
symptom, or presage, of a revival among the peasantry which, of course, is
enough to “turn the heads” of non-class-conscious proletarians and
petty-bourgeois intellectuals. As far as we Marxists are concerned, this
fact will only stimulate our efforts in advocating Marxism as against
petty-bourgeois Narodism.

Fellow-workers!Put less faith in promises and fairy-tales! Study more
closely theobjectivedata on your own working-class movement and
on how the bourgeois ideas and the bourgeois practices of the liquidators
and Left Narodniks influence a minority of the workers.

[1]Seepp. 363–71 of this volume.—Ed.

[2]Leninis referring to the resolution of the Second Congress of the
R.S.D.L.P. in 1903 “On the Socialist-Revolutionaries”; the resolution of
the Fifth (London) Congress of the R.S.D.L.P. (1907) on “Attitude Towards
the Bourgeois Parties”, the resolution of the Poronin meeting of the
Central Committee of the R.S.D.L.P. on “The Narodniks”. (SeeThe
C.P.S.U. in Resolutions and Decisions of Congresses, Conferences and
Plenary Meetings of the Central Committee, Russ. ed., Part I, 1954,
pp. 49–50; 158–60; 316–17.)

[3]Thisrefers to the Tenth International Congress, which was to have been
held in Vienna. The question of the Vienna Congress was discussed at the
meeting of the International Socialist Bureau held in December 1913. It was
resolved to convene the Congressin August 1914, to coincide with the celebration of the fiftieth
anniversary of the First International. The agenda was to have been as
follows: =

1) The high cost of living, =

2) Imperialism and the fight against militarism—including the subordinate
questions: (a) the Eastern question, (b) compulsory courts of arbitration
among nations, and c) the United States of Europe; =

3) Alcoholism, =

4) Unemployment, =

5) The position of political prisoners and exiles in Russia, and =

6) Miscellanea.

Thenumber of delegates was not to exceed the number of votes of the
given country by more than sixfold. Russia had 20 votes, consequently not
more than 120 delegates for both subsections of the Social-Democrats and
the Left Narodniks and for the trade unions.

Thequestion of the International Socialist Congress in Vienna was
discussed at the Poronin meeting of the C. C. and Party workers. Lenin made
a report on this question, and proposed that every effort be made to send a
majority of Social-Democratic worker delegates to the Vienna Congress.

Electionof delegates to the International Socialist Congress was
practically completed by the end of July 1914, but the out break of war
prevented the Congress from convening.